2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 6-3-2008 

# C raig S aunde rs v

. Gwe ndol yn B right P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1763

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C r ai g S aunde r s v

. Gwe ndo lyn B ri ght " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1067. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/1067A L D - 209 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 1763 CR A I G D U V A L SA U N D ER S, A ppel l ant v . G W EN D O LY N BR I G H T, J U D G E; BA RR Y H A RR I S, COURT RE P ORTE R; S HARON GERM AN, COURT RE P OR T E R/ I NT E RP RE T E R; M I CH AE L AM M ANN, DE P UT Y C OUR T ADMI NI S T RA T OR ; S US AN CA RMODY, S UP E RV I S OR ; CO UNT Y AND C I T Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; L AW DE P AR T M E NT - CL AI M S DI VI S I ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 01468) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) or P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ay22, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FI SH E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 3, 2008) OP I NI ONT h e c irc u m sta n c e s o f h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e a re n o t d isc lo se d in h is 1 C o m p lain t. I n fac t , the named defe ndant s ar e empl oy ees of the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof 2 P e n n s yl v a n i a , a s t a t e e n t i ty. Saunder s r eques t ed def aul tj udgm ent s agai ns tal l defe ndant s , a r eques tthe D i s tr i ct 3 C our tdeni ed. 2 P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antC r ai g Saunder s , a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s oner , w as convi ct ed i n the Phi l adel phi a C our tof C om m on Pl eas and s ent ence d. T hes e convi ct i ons w er e af fi r m ed 1 b yth e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p e ri o r C o u rt . S a u n d e rs ’ f ir s t tr ia l e n d e d in a m is tr ia l, h o w e v e r. S au n d ers f

il ed a c ivil ri g h ts acti o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 in U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia a g a in st th e sta te tria l ju d g e w h o p re sid e d o v e r h is s econd tr i al , cert ai n otherper s onnel of the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, and the C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, w h ich w as a ll eg ed to b e the d ef en d an ts’ em p loy er. S au n d ers 2 a lleg e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts, th ro u g h th e ir re f u sa l to p ro v id e h im w ith tra n sc rip ts f ro m h is fi r s ttr i al , depr i ved hi m of the document s nece s s aryt o es t abl i s h hi s i nnocenc e atthe r etr i al , atw hi ch he w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el , and on di r ectappea l , w her e he pr ocee ded pr o s e. H e s oughtm oneydamages and other“pr os pect i ve” r el i ef. T h e d e f e n d a n ts m o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to th e “ f a v o ra b le t erm i nati on rul e” of

H eck v . H um ph rey , 51 2 U . S . 47 7 (199 4), no t i ng that Saun ders’ convi ct i ons , byhi s ow n admi s s i on, had neve rbeen i nval i dat ed. I n an or derent er ed on 3 February28, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s andT he courtfurtherconcl uded that , t o the ext entthatSaunder s s oughtt o i ncl ude 4 c a u se s o f a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § § 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 5 a n d 1 9 8 6 , H e c k a p p lied th e re a s w e ll, beca us e the l ogi c of H eck i s thatci vi l r i ght s s ui t s , l i ke comm on l aw t or ts ui t s , ar e notan appr opr i at e means forchal l engi ng the val i di tyof out s t andi ng cr i m i nal j udgm ent s . See, e.g., M cQ u il li o n v . S ch w arz en eg g er, 36 9 F . 3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 7 n . 4 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 3 deni ed Saunder s l eave t o amend hi s compl ai nt . T he courtr eas oned thatr el i ef c oul d not be g rant ed w i tho ut col l at eral l yrenderi ng S aun ders’ con vict i on s effect i velyi nv al i d. T hu s, H eck appl i ed t o barthe ac t i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al 4 j ur i s di ct i on overs ever al caus es of ac t i on ar i s i ng underPenns y l vani a l aw , and deni ed S a u n d e rs’ m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t as , in e f f e c t, fu til e . S a u n d e rs f

iled a tim e ly m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n o f th is de cisi o n an d a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l. T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mot i on forr econs i der at i on i n an or derent er ed on M ay13, 2008, concl udi ng thatSaunder s ’ att empt t o di s t i ngui s h hi s cas e fr om thos e thatar e barr ed byH eck w as unper s uas i ve. O u r C ler k g ra n ted S a u n d e rs le a v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris a n d a d v ise d h im thathi s appea l w as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) , orthati tm i ghtbe appr opr i at e fors um m aryact i on underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. H e w as i nvi t ed t o s ubm i ta w r i t t en r es pons e, and he ha s done s o, s ubm i t t i ng a “M ot i on for Sum m aryA ct i on, ” w hi ch w e cons true as a mot i on fors um m aryr ever s al and r emand. We w i l l d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l a s f r i v o l o u s u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) . We have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. A n appel l antm aypr os ecut e hi s appea l w i thout pr epaym entof the fe es , 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 1) , butthe i n form a paupe r i s s t atut e pr ovi des4

th a t th e C o u rt sh a ll d ism iss th e a p p e a l at a n ytim e if th e C o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t itis f riv o lo u s, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i). A n a p p e a l is f riv o lo u s w h e n it l a c k s a n a rg u a b le bas i s ei theri n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . “To survi ve a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , a ci vi l pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege f act s that‘ r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the sp e c u lativ e lev e l o n th e a ss u m p tio n th a t th e a lleg a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t ar e tru e (e v e n if doubt ful i n fac t ) . ’ ” V i ct aul i c C o. v. T i eman, 499 F. 3d 227, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng B ell A tl an ti c C o rp. v. T w o m b ly , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 5 (20 0 7 )). T h is a p p e a l o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) la c k s a n a rg u a b le b a sis in law . In H e c k , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a p riso n e r’s a c tio n u n d e r th e c iv il righ ts la w s c a n n o t b e m a in tain e d if “ a ju d g m e n t in favorof the pl ai nt i ff w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence

. . . unl es s the pl ai nt i ff c an demonstr at e thatthe convi ct i on ors ent ence has al r eadybeen i nval i dat ed. ” I d. at487. H eck’ s favor abl e t erm i nat i on rul e appl i es “no mat t erthe t ar get o f th e p ri so n er’s su it(st ate c o n d u ct l ea d ing to co n v ict ion o r i n terna l pri so n p roc ee d ing s) – if su c c e ss in th a t ac tio n w o u ld n e c e ss a rilyd e m o n stra te th e in v a lid ityo f c o n f in e m e n t o r its dur at i on. ” W i l ki ns on v. D ot s on, 544 U . S. 74, 81- 82 ( 2005) . See al s o E dw ar ds v. B al i s ok, 520 U . S. 641, 646- 47 ( 1997) . W e conc l ude thatther e i s no ar guabl e bas i s for d isa g re e in g w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t re lief c o u ld n o t b e g ra n ted in h is c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n w ith o u t c o lla te ra lly re n d e ri n g S a u n d e rs ’ c o n v ic tio n s e f f e c tiv e ly in v a lid . F u rth e rm o re , h is c o n v ictio n s h a v e n e v e r b e e n re v e rse d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, de c lar e d in v a lid5

bya s t at e tr i bunal , orcal l ed i nt o ques t i on bya fe der al court ’ s i s s uance of a w r i tof habe as corpus , and he, ther efor e, has nots at i s fi ed H eck’ s favor abl e t erm i nat i on rul e. 512 U . S. at 486- 87. T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on t o denythe mot i on t o amend the compl ai ntbeca us e anyamendm entw oul d have be en fut i l e, s ee Foman v. D avi s , 371 U . S. 178, 182 ( 1962) , and pr oper l ydecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on, 28 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 (c)(3). W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l a s f ri v o lo u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( i) . A p p ell an t’ s “M o ti o n fo r S u m m aryA cti o n , ” w h ich w e c o n stru e a s a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary r ever s al and r emand, i s deni ed.